Related Experiment Videos
A note on explanation and understanding in psychology
The British Journal of Medical Psychology
|March 1, 1985
Summary
Psychology does not require unique scientific methods despite its focus on subjective experiences. Natural science models are adequate for explaining psychological phenomena, including intentional content.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Philosophy of Science
Background:
- Recent arguments suggest psychology's reliance on anecdotal and introspective data necessitates unique scientific methodologies.
- This perspective posits that natural science models are inadequate for psychological inquiry.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically examine Hetherington's arguments regarding the distinctiveness of psychological explanation.
- To determine if psychological data necessitates a departure from natural science methodologies.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of Hetherington's arguments concerning anecdotal evidence, introspection, and rare events in psychology.
- Comparative evaluation of explanatory models in natural sciences versus psychology.
Main Results:
- Psychological data does not inherently require a fundamentally different explanatory approach than that used in natural sciences.
- While intentional content is unique to psychology, this does not invalidate natural science methods.
Conclusions:
- Hetherington's conclusions about the need for radically different psychological explanation methods are unwarranted.
- The methodologies and explanatory models of the natural sciences are appropriate for psychology.